JUDGMENT : C.L. Soni, J. 1. In all these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners have challenged the orders dated 11.02.2015 individually issued to them by respondent No. 2 - Chief Officer, Gandhidham Municipality asking them to remove their cabins - unauthorized encroachments within seven days failing which as stated in the impugned orders, their cabins/encroachments shall be removed at their risk and cost. 2. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they have been doing their business in their cabins at Jhanda Chowk, Gandhidham for last more than ten years under the licences granted by Municipality which have been renewed from time to time and lastly renewed upto December 2015. It is the case of the petitioners that they have not violated any conditions of licences issued to them, however, under the political pressure, respondent No. 3 - Collector issued direction to respondent No. 2 to remove their cabins. The petitioners have further stated that under the political dictates respondent No. 2 issued impugned orders without hearing them and in violation of the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act, 2014 (Central Act 7 of 2014) (for short "the Act"). It is their say that there are large number of other cabin holders in Gandhidham who are allowed to do their business under similar licences issued to them and the action taken against them is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 3. The respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 4 have filed affidavit-in-reply opposing the petitions. 4. Learned senior advocate Mr. Prashant Desai appearing with learned advocate Mr. C.B. Dastoor for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners who are from one family - related cousins have been doing their business legitimately in their cabins under the licences issued to them by the Municipality and they are, therefore, not encroachers. Mr. Desai submitted that the licences of the petitioners have been renewed from time to time and though the petitioners have not violated any conditions of the licences issued to them, they are sought to be removed by the impugned orders. Mr. Desai submitted that the notices issued to the petitioners for removal of their cabins do not state which condition of licence is breached by the petitioners. Mr. Mr. Desai submitted that the notices issued to the petitioners for removal of their cabins do not state which condition of licence is breached by the petitioners. Mr. Desai submitted that under the similar such licences, other licence holders are still allowed to do their business in their cabins and a selective action is taken only against the petitioners under the political pressure just for the benefit of respondent No. 4. 5. Mr. Desai submitted that the impugned action is taken at the dictate of respondent No. 3 - Collector and in breach to the basic principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing is afforded to the petitioners. Mr. Desai submitted that for any alleged breach of condition of licences issued to the petitioners, the cabins of the petitioners cannot be removed from their present occupation without following provisions of the Gujarat Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act (for short "the Eviction Act"). Mr. Desai submitted that even otherwise, before actually removing the cabins of the petitioners, the petitioners are required to be given alternative places to earn their livelihood as mandated by the Act. Mr. Desai submitted that though the petitioners have shown different places for providing them alternative places, they are not given such alternative places and thereby the Municipality has violated mandate of the legislature contained in the Act. Mr. Desai, thus, urged to allow the petitions and to quash the impugned action. 6. Learned advocate Ms. K.J. Brahmbhatt appearing for the Municipality submitted that the petitioners are not original licence holders but they purchased rights from the original licence holders. She submitted that the licence holders were granted temporary permission to occupy small place for their cabins under the specific terms and conditions. She submitted that the petitioners have violated the conditions of the licence by not only making change in business but by also changing the place originally allotted so as to join all the cabins together and converted them in one permanent fixed structure on footpath as one shop and starting lucrative business of dairy. She submitted that since, the petitioners made permanent structure on the footpath, they did not even allow to do drainage and other pipe related work beneath of footpath as a result of which public related work suffered. Ms. She submitted that since, the petitioners made permanent structure on the footpath, they did not even allow to do drainage and other pipe related work beneath of footpath as a result of which public related work suffered. Ms. Brahmbhatt submitted that the purpose for giving temporary licence was to see that the poor persons earned their livelihood by placing their cabins at the place marked for them, however, the petitioners took undue advantage of the good purpose behind temporary licence by purchasing rights from the original licence holders to do joint business of dairy products. Ms. Brahmbhatt submitted that the petitioners are, in fact, having such dairy business at two other places and since they have made one big shop in place of three cabins, they cannot be called as street vendors or hawkers, they are not entitled to any alternative place under the Act especially when their licences have not been renewed after 2015. Ms. Brahmbhatt submitted that since the petitioners have continued to run their dairy parlour unauthorizedly on footpath, they were issued with the notice to remove their unauthorized occupation and for removal of such unauthorized occupation, there is no question of following the provisions of the Eviction Act. She submitted that as stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Chief Officer, it is not possible for the Municipality to give any alternative place to the petitioners. She submitted that even otherwise, the petitioners are not entitled to claim, as a matter of right, any alternative place as the petitioners are traders who jointly do their business of dairy products and purpose of the act is not for the benefits of the persons like the petitioners, who are traders in dairy products. She, thus, urged to dismiss the petitions. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Deepak Sanchela appearing for respondent No. 4 submitted that respondent No. 4 is the owner of the plot whereon his residential premises is stands just behind the footpath which is occupied by the petitioners by their fixed permanent shop. Mr. Sanchela submitted that the permanent structure of the shop held by the petitioners on the footpath not only violated rights of respondent No. 4 to have excess to the light and the air for the beneficial enjoyment of his residential premises, but even the general public is deprived of their right to pass through the footpath. Mr. Mr. Sanchela submitted that the permanent structure of the shop held by the petitioners on the footpath not only violated rights of respondent No. 4 to have excess to the light and the air for the beneficial enjoyment of his residential premises, but even the general public is deprived of their right to pass through the footpath. Mr. Sanchela submitted that as per the conditions of the original licence, the licence holders were permitted to occupy very small place and under the licences, temporary occupation permission was granted. He submitted that the purpose for giving temporary permission was not to allow anybody to convert small cabins in fixed permanent shop to do lucrative business, however, the petitioners made fixed structure of shop in place of three cabins and run dairy parlour and for making such fixed structure of shop, they shifted one cabin from different place to join with other two cabins for one fixed shop. Mr. Sanchela submitted that the petitioners have two other dairy parlours at other places and to continue with joint venture in dairy business, they purchased the rights from the original license holders and established dairy business at the present place and thereby grossly violated the conditions of the licences and frustrated the very purpose of giving temporary licences by the Municipality. Mr. Sanchela submitted that the Act is not meant for the persons like the petitioners as the petitioners cannot be said to be street vendors or hawkers. Mr. Sanchela submitted that there is no question of exercising any political pressure to remove the petitioners from their occupation on the footpath, but since the petitioners are not entitled to continue their business in the shop made on the footpath and since by fixed structure of the shop, the rights of respondent No. 4 are grossly violated, even respondent No. 4 is very much entitled to object in allowing the petitioners to continue with their shop on the footpath. Mr. Sanchela, thus, urged to dismiss the petitions. 8. The Court, having heard learned advocates for both the sides, finds that the petitioners purchased the cabins from original licence holders and got the registration of the cabins transferred in their names. Mr. Sanchela, thus, urged to dismiss the petitions. 8. The Court, having heard learned advocates for both the sides, finds that the petitioners purchased the cabins from original licence holders and got the registration of the cabins transferred in their names. As per the decision conveyed vide communications on different dates to the petitioners by the Chief Officer, copies whereof are placed on record, the permission for temporary occupation of the land for placing cabins was changed in the names of the petitioners in the year 2007 and such permission of temporary occupation of the land is stated to have been sanctioned under the Temporary Occupancy Rules. The petitioners have placed on record the registration given to the petitioners under the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act, 1948 (for short "the Shops and Establishments Act") wherein the name of establishment given is 'Sonal Dairy Farm and Sweet' and the renewal of such registration is shown to be upto the December 2015. The petitioners, thus, do the business jointly in the name of 'Sonal Dairy Farm and Sweet' by converting place permitted for temporary occupancy for erection of their cabins in fixed shop. As per one of the conditions mentioned in the licence, as and when the Municipality informs the cabin holders in writing to remove the cabin in public interest, the cabin holders shall be required to remove such cabins and the cabin holders shall be required to comply with the Temporary Occupancy Rules. As per the Rules of temporary occupancy, the copy whereof is placed at page No. 35 of the first petition, the Chief Officer of the Municipality is authorized to take action in exercise of powers vested with him under Section 185(2) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act, 1963 (for short "the Municipalities Act"). Section 185 of the Municipalities Act reads as under: 185. Section 185 of the Municipalities Act reads as under: 185. Obstruction and encroachments upon public streets and, any open spaces :- (1) Whoever in any area after it has become a municipal borough, (a) shall, have built or set up, or shall build or set up, any wall, or any fence, rail, post, stall, verandah, platform, plinth, step or any projecting structure or thing or other encroachment or obstruction, or (b) shall deposit or cause to be placed or deposited any box, bale, package or merchandise, or any other thing, in any public place or street or in or over or upon any open drain, gutter, sewer or aqueduct in such place or street shall be punished with fine which may extend to fifty rupees and with further fine which may extend to ten rupees for every day on which, such projection, encroachment, obstruction or deposit continues after the date of first conviction for such offence. (2) The Chief Officer shall have power to remove any such obstruction or encroachment, and shall have the like power to remove any unauthorised obstruction or encroachment of the like nature in any open space not being private property, whether such space is vested in the municipality or not; provided that if the space be vested in Government the permission of the Collector shall have first been obtained; the expense of such removal shall be paid by the person who has caused the said obstruction or encroachment, and shall be recoverable in the same manner as an amount claimed on account of any tax recoverable under Chapter IX. (3) Whoever, not being duly authorised in that behalf, removes earth, sand or other material from, or makes any encroachment in or upon any open space which is not private property, shall be punished with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, and, in the case of encroachment, with further fine which may extend to twenty rupees for every day on which the encroachment continues after the date of first conviction for such offence. (4) Nothing contained in this section shall prevent the chief officer from allowing any temporary occupation of or erections in any public street on occasions of festivals and ceremonies, or the piling of fuel in by-streets and spaces for not more than ten days and in such manner as not to inconvenience the public or any individual from allowing the occupation of, or temporary erection of structures on, any such streets or spaces for any other purposes in accordance with bye-laws made under the Act. (5) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to any projection duly authorized under sub-section (1) of section 176. 9. It appears that Gandhidham Municipality passed resolution No. 857 on 03.12.2014 to remove the cabins at Jhanda Chowk area between the commercial-cum-residential unit Nos. 55 and 56 for doing the work of paver block as such cabins were obstructing the work of paver block and the road. It appears that temporary permission was though given for place at S.D.X., South Block No. 18 but the cabin No. 58 was shifted without any permission to the place of Jhanda Chowk where the cabins of the petitioner of the first petition and the petitioner of the third petition were placed and, therefore, vide notice dated 30.12.2014, the petitioner of the second petition was asked to remove such cabin so as to place it in its proper place as per the temporary permission which was originally granted. But the facts would go to show that shifting of such cabin at Jhanda Chowk to place it with other two cabins was with an idea to join all the cabins together to make fixed structure of shop to run dairy parlour therein as a joint venture business for which the petitioners obtained registration under the Shops and Establishments Act in the name of Sonal Dairy Farm and Sweet. 10. It appears that since the Municipality found that the petitioners were acting contrary to the conditions for temporary occupation, it passed resolution in the month of January 2015 for cancelling temporary permission of the petitioners and following which the petitioners were issued with the notice dated 11.02.2015 which the petitioners have referred to as the impugned orders asking the petitioners to remove their unauthorized occupations. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have occupied footpath to run dairy parlour. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have occupied footpath to run dairy parlour. The respondent No. 2 - Chief Officer in his affidavit-in-reply has stated that though the petitioners were granted permission for erection of temporary wooden cabins, they have put up pakka construction and thereby violated the conditions of the temporary permission. It is further stated by respondent No. 2 in affidavit-in-reply that when the Municipality carried out the road and paver block work in the Gandhidham city, the petitioners were asked to remove their cabins but they did not remove, as a result of which the work of paver block and the road are left out in the area where the petitioners have their cabins. It is further stated by respondent No. 2 in affidavit-in-reply that the impugned notices issued to the petitioners are in exercise of power under Section 185 of the Municipalities Act and it is denied that such notices were issued at the behest of any political person. It is further stated that the petitioners have committed breach of conditions of temporary permission and since the temporary permission has been cancelled the petitioners have no right to continue with the cabins. With the affidavit-in-reply, respondent No. 2 has placed the xerox copy of the photographs stated to be of permanent structure of shop made by the petitioners wherein the petitioners run business of dairy products in the name of 'Sonal Dairy Farm and Sweet'. Such similar photographs are also placed by respondent No. 4 with his affidavit-in-reply. From the xerox copy of the photographs placed with the affidavit-in-reply of respondent No. 2 and original photographs placed by respondent No. 4 with his affidavit-in-reply, it appears that a permanent structure to look as one shop is made by the petitioners and just behind such shop, the residential premises of respondent No. 4 is stated to be situated. The photograph shows that on top of the shop a big board showing the name of the establishment of the petitioners as Sonal Dairy and Sweet is placed. The petitioners, therefore, do not appear to be either street vendors or hawkers but they are traders and as submitted by learned advocates appearing for the respondents, they are well established traders/businessmen. The photograph shows that on top of the shop a big board showing the name of the establishment of the petitioners as Sonal Dairy and Sweet is placed. The petitioners, therefore, do not appear to be either street vendors or hawkers but they are traders and as submitted by learned advocates appearing for the respondents, they are well established traders/businessmen. The respondent No. 4 with his affidavit-in-reply filed in Special Civil Application No. 2791 of 2015 has placed on record the documents as regards the registration under the Shops and Establishments Act for establishment of Sonal Dairy Farm and Sweet and Sumul Dairy Farm and Sweet by the petitioners and their family members at other two places. They, thus, appear to have established business in dairy products. The petitioners, who are traders/businessmen in the dairy products, are not entitled to claim alternative place under the Act. Though during the course of hearing of the petitions, the petitioners were permitted to show availability of alternative places, however, the Chief Officer in his affidavit-in-reply has stated that the Municipality has no place to offer as alternative place to the petitioners and that the places shown by the petitioners are not possible to be offered as alternative place and that the Municipality has no land of its own. The petitioners, therefore, filed above referred Civil Applications seeking to join Kandla Port Trust and Sindhu Resettlement Corporation Limited as party respondents for allotment of land in Gandhidham. Such applications cannot be entertained as under the Act, the alternative place could be offered under the scheme framed for such purpose to the street vendors or hawkers but not to the traders like the petitioners. 11. The Court finds that when the petitioners were permitted to change their names in the permission for temporary occupation in the year 2007, they were to hold the places as temporary occupation under the Rules for permission for temporary occupation. However, with the clear intention and idea to convert the temporary occupation in permanent occupation, they not only shifted the cabin No. 58 at the present place but converted all cabins in permanent structure to make one shop for running a good business of dairy products. In view of such permanent nature of the occupations to run dairy business jointly, the petitioners cannot be made entitled to have alternative place under the Act. In view of such permanent nature of the occupations to run dairy business jointly, the petitioners cannot be made entitled to have alternative place under the Act. The petitioners were not entitled to continue with the temporary occupation contrary to the Rules, and the Chief Officer was authorized in asking the petitioners to remove their temporary occupations in pursuance of the resolution passed by the Municipality. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam and Mr. Amit Barot appearing for the Collector submitted that since there were complaints against the petitioners occupying the footpath, their removal was required in the public interest and, therefore, the Municipality has not committed any illegality in taking action following the instructions given by the Collector. The Court finds that since the petitioners have used the footpath by making fixed structure of shop to run permanent dairy business, the respondent No. 2 has committed no illegality in issuing impugned notice/order. 12. Learned senior advocate Mr. Desai, however, submitted that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners before making impugned orders nor even the provisions of the Eviction Act were followed. The Court finds that when the petitioners were issued notice following the decision taken by the Municipality and the petitioners having acted in contravention of the temporary permission granted to place their cabins, the petitioners would not have any right to continue their business of dairy products on the footpath and, therefore, there is no question of giving any hearing to the petitioners. The requirement to follow procedure under the Eviction Act is not meant for the persons like the petitioners who were allowed to do business on the footpath under the temporary permission granted by the Municipality but it would be only under the Rules for temporary permission and under the provisions of Section 185 of the Municipalities Act, the action for removal of the petitioners could be taken. It is not the case where lease was granted in favour of the petitioners of any premises belonging to the Government or the Municipality. In such view of the matter, there is no question of following the provisions of the Eviction Act before removing the petitioners from their occupations on the footpath. 13. In above view of the matter, the petitioners do not deserve any relief to be granted in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. In such view of the matter, there is no question of following the provisions of the Eviction Act before removing the petitioners from their occupations on the footpath. 13. In above view of the matter, the petitioners do not deserve any relief to be granted in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitions are, therefore, required to be dismissed. The Civil Applications are also required to be 14. In the result, the petitions are dismissed. Rule is discharged. The above referred Civil Applications are rejected. Interim relief stands vacated. 15. Learned senior advocate Mr. Desai, however, requests at this stage to continue interim relief. Such request is opposed by the learned advocates for the respondents. The Court finds that since the petitioners have been doing their business of running dairy parlour since 2007, they could be given some reasonable time to vacate their present occupations and to remove their shop from the present place. The petitioners are, therefore, given two months' time to remove their shops/occupation from the present place. On expiry of two months, if the petitioners fail to remove their shop/cabins from the present place, the respondent - Municipality and the Collector shall remove their shop/cabins within four weeks thereafter. Petition Dismissed